On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote
> In many disciplines, citability requires going to the page level. If the
> deposited article in an IR is not paginated in the same fashion as in
> the journal, it is no longer citable as a journal article and one has to
> go back to the journal to cite the passage correctly, down to the page
> number.
>
> My suggestion is that the IR simply declares that the article deposited
> is conformant to the published version and, as such, citable as is.
>
> In other words, the version of the article would be as good a reference
> as the peer-reviewed version of the article.
My perplexity is genuine:
If I cannot afford access to the toll-access version of a published
journal article, but I do have access to a self-archived Open Access
version of it, lacking page numbers, I understand how it might be
useful to have a reliable version-comparer confirm that the two texts
are substantially the same -- as
http://valrec.eprints.org/ does -- and
I said so in my original comment below: Authentication (institutional or
otherwise) of the self-archived draft is welcome and useful (but not a
priority: the drafts themselves, mostly still not self-archived today,
are the priority).
But how on earth does the version-authentication of the self-archived
draft of a published, peer-reviewed journal article take care of the
page-reference problem (and is it really a problem?)?
If the problem is finding the page-span for the journal reference, and
the self-archived draft lacks it, one can of course always find it in a
bibliographic database (or one can let the copy editor of the journal in
which one is publishing one's own article find it).
If it is to find the pages on which quoted or noted passages appear, I
would say section headings plus paragraph numbers pinpoint them just as
well,
if not better, in the PostGutenberg era.
If an editor is pedantic enough not to be prepared to settle for section
headings plus paragraph numbers to specify cited passages in the original
published journal article, it is highly unlikely that he will want to
settle instead for section headings plus paragraph numbers to locate the
same passage in the supplementary version of that article, self-archived
in the author's IR, in order to make it OA for those who cannot afford
access to the published version (whether or not that supplementary
version has been institutionally verified as a bona fide doppelganger of
the original published article -- in all but the page numbers)!
(I won't even consider the even more baroque variant of generating a
paginated PDF of the self-archived supplement, merely in order to
satisfy the residual Gutenberg compulsion to have page numbers at all
costs, even when it puts them in competition with the official published
version!)
Stevan Harnad
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
> I think Jean-Claude has perfectly understood the question and it is one
> that was debated some time ago.
>
> In many disciplines, citability requires going to the page level. If the
> deposited article in an IR is not paginated in the same fashion as in
> the journal, it is no longer citable as a journal article and one has to
> go back to the journal to cite the passage correctly, down to the page
> number.
>
> My suggestion is that the IR simply declares that the article deposited
> is conformant to the published version and, as such, citable as is.
>
> In other words, the version of the article would be as good a reference
> as the peer-reviewed version of the article.
>
> As for branding issues, I do not remember raising them in the message
> mentioned here.
>
> Best,
>
> jcg
>
> Le mercredi 23 avril 2008 à 14:56 +0100, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>
> > I think Jean-Claude may have misunderstood the question at issue here:
> >
> > It concerns the depositing of peer-reviewed, published articles in the
> > author's Institutional Repository so that they can be accessed by all
> > would-be users, not just those who can afford access to the journal in
> > which it was published.
> >
> > The specific question was about how to provide the link to the
> > publisher's official version, if authors wish to provide it (for
> > scholarly purposes, as they should!), or because a Green publisher has
> > requested that it be provided, in exchange for their blessing on
> > immediate OA self-archiving.
> >
> > There is not issue of citability: The published article is perfectly
> > citable, as always. Nor is there any issue of institutional "branding":
> > the branding is done by the peer-reviewed journal and its track-record
> > for quality. The institution merely provides access to the final
> > refereed draft:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
> >
> > > One important suggestion in this regard is to make the stored article
> > > citable.
> >
> > The stored article is (the author's final refereed draft ["postprint"]
> > of) a published, peer-reviewed journal article.
> >
> > Journal articles are already citable (author, date, title, journalname,
> > volume, issue, pages, etc.).
> >
> > In addition, it is a good idea to have a link, in the citation itself,
> > to an openly accessible version of the published article (not just the
> > publisher's toll-access version).
> >
> > That is what depositing the postprint in the author's Institutional
> > Repository is for: To provide free access to the published article.
> >
> > Not to provide something else, citable in its own right (except of
> > course the pre-refereeing preprint, is should only be consulted and
> > cited until the refereed postprint becomes available).
> >
> > > Any academic institution with a good name can provide the
> > > check needed to guarantee this status to any stored article.
> >
> > It is ambiguous whether what Jean-Claude means here is that the
> > institution should make sure that what has been deposited by the author
> > as
> > a postprint of the journal-published article is indeed the final
> > refereed
> > draft of the published journal article. (Such institutional
> > authentication
> > is welcome, but it is not, strictly speaking, necessary, as what is
> > mostly
> > missing now is the postprints themselves, not their authentications.)
> >
> > Or what Jean-Claude may mean here is an extension of the "branding" that
> > has been discussed before -- and that (in my view) conflates unpublished
> > papers, unrefereed preprints, and published postprints.
> >
> > The query below pertained to refereed postprints, OA's target, not to
> > unpublished papers in need of an institutional "brand."
> >
> > Harnad, S. (2005) Fast-Forward on the Green Road to Open Access:
> > The Case Against Mixing Up Green and Gold. Ariadne 42. (Japanese
> > version) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10675/
> >
> > > From that
> > > point on, the link to the publisher, even if needed, loses importance
> > > because the open nature of the article will steer users in its
> > > direction.
> >
> > The link to the publisher of a published article loses its importance? I
> > agree it is not important for access, given that the OA version is
> > accessible and the user cannot afford the toll-access version. But
> > surely the publisher link is useful for the scholarly record -- and in
> > case anyone may wish to compare the versions. (Not to mention that some
> > publishers "require" it as a condition for self-archiving the
> > postprint.)
> >
> > > Of course, some persistent access means will also be needed.
> >
> > IR's provide persistent access; so do publishers. What's still missing
> > today is 85% of the postprints to which persistent access can then
> > be provided! (That's what the mandates are for.) Meanwhile, no harm
> > in accommodating publishers' minor conditions on endorsing Green OA
> > self-archiving -- especially if it also serves a useful scholarly
> > purpose.)
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> > > Le mardi 22 avril 2008 à 10:36 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> > > > On 22-Apr-08, at 10:12 AM, dspace-general-request_at_mit.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:24:29 -0700
> > > > > From: "Jeremy C. Shellhase" <jcs -- lib-mail.humboldt.edu>
> > > > >
> > > > > We're working to include more of our faculty's published works in
> > > > > our instance of dspace, Humboldt Digital Scholar, and wanted to
> > > > > pose
> > > > > a couple questions about "best practices" in complying with some
> > > > > of
> > > > > the RoMEO green publishers requirements, before we got too far
> > > > > along
> > > > > in the work.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SHERPA RoMEO "Green" is not quite the right category, because it
> > > > means
> > > > "BOTH postprint-Green AND preprint-Green" whereas what you should be
> > > > covering is postprint-Green, whether or not the publisher also
> > > > happens
> > > > to be preprint-Green, and you should also look carefully at the
> > > > preprint Greens, because many of them mean "postprint" (author's
> > > > final
> > > > refereed draft) even though they say "preprint" (unrefereed draft)
> > > > wrongly thinking that "postprint" means publisher's PDF!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Publishers frequently ask for a link back to their online presence
> > > > > with statements like:
> > > > > * Must link to publisher version
> > > > > * Must link to publisher version or journal home page
> > > > > * Must link to APA journal home page
> > > > > We've looked in the metadata fields available and cannot really
> > > > > find
> > > > > a perfect place for this information and link. Has anyone set a
> > > > > standard practice for this using metadata?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There should be an "other locations" field in DSpace, as there is in
> > > > EPrints. (If not, someone should quickly create/configure one.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's the place to put the link to the publisher link.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The other option is to include this information as a preliminary
> > > > > page added to the actual submission, embedding the information in
> > > > > the digital object itself. If there are any other great ideas
> > > > > floating around, we'd sure like to hear.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's an option, and not bad as scholarly practice. But since
> > > > it
> > > > entails more work for the author, and since it's already like
> > > > pulling
> > > > teeth to get them to deposit, it's probably more efficient to use
> > > > the
> > > > "other locations" field in the IR interface.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Publishers frequently state that "Publisher version cannot be
> > > > > used",
> > > > > allowing only the author's pre or post refereeing drafts. Well,
> > > > > as
> > > > > it turns out, many of the faculty that have time to consider
> > > > > archiving their legacy are emeritus or close to it and the
> > > > > publications they're interested in archiving no longer have a
> > > > > digital author's copy available. We're stuck with how to proceed,
> > > > > if indeed we can. Does scanning and OCRing a printed copy of an
> > > > > article satisfy this requirement?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree completely with the previous reply by Shane Beers below:
> > > > Just
> > > > "repurpose" the PDF or scanned OCR.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stevan Harnad
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: Shane Beers <sbeers -- gmu.edu>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've discussed this in past dspace threads, but I'll mention it
> > > > > > again
> > > > > > here. I frequently use a software called ABBYY FineReader Pro
> > > > > > (http://www.abbyy.com/finereader8/?param=44890
> > > > > > ), which allows one to import an existing PDF and re-purpose the
> > > > > > content. I've been thinking about writing up a guide to using
> > > > > > ABBYY to
> > > > > > do this, but it's not difficult to figure out, in my opinion.
> > > > > > Essentially you take the content and de-select things like page
> > > > > > headers/footers/etc and create a new PDF that uses the same
> > > > > > textual
> > > > > > content, but does not contain any publisher information. This
> > > > > > successfully side-steps that issue, in my not-a-lawyer point of
> > > > > > view.
> > >
> > > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > > Université de Montréal
> > >
> > >
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Université de Montréal
>
Received on Fri Apr 25 2008 - 03:29:42 BST